About 35,000 tourists visit Antarctica each year, with most arriving on sea cruises, seeking to go camping, cross country skiing, hiking, mountaineering, or even visit the South Pole. The number of visitors to Antarctica is forecast to rise to almost 45,000 in 2017 - just below the 2008 pre-recession peak - with more people actually landing on the continent than ever before (many tourists simply sail past an Antarctic peninsula, staring at icebergs through binoculars). Most tourists to Antarctica are from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, but a growing number are from China too, with more than 4,000 Chinese people traveling to Antarctica in the 2015 / 2016 season, compared to just 99 a decade ago.

Antarctic tourism companies must book pre-approved sites in advance, to minimize the impact on the local environment, but as the number of visitors keeps growing, some countries are clamoring for tighter regulation. This is explained The Guardian, here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ield-trips.

Scenic flights

Air New Zealand briefly ran scenic flights over the continent. In 1979, one of its planes crashed into Mount Erebus, killing all 257 on board. That disaster has left a scar on New Zealand, and is likely the reason for the airline's decision not to return to Antarctica for more than three decades. Meanwhile, each year, Qantas runs several flights from Australia to Antarctica (a sightseeing flyover that does not land), with a distance of between 9,500 – 10,500 kms, return (approximately 12.5 hours), depending on the departure city. Expert Antarctic expeditioners are onboard to talk on the polar environment and its history, while video screenings depict life on the ground. See: http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/home#expect.

Upcoming Qantas flyover flights to Antarctica depart from:- Sydney on November 25, 2017- Melbourne on December 31, 2017- Melbourne on February 11, 2018- Brisbane on February 18, 2018

Aviation facilities

Despite the prominence of sea cruises, Antarctica also has several runways capable of handling modern jet aircraft. The Antarctic's ice runways (like at McMurdo Station, in New Zealand's Ross Dependency) often have the characteristics of a regular runway that is covered in dry snow, much like pilots might expect to encounter at cold commercial airports. Landing strips in Antarctica do need to be prepared carefully though, so that there is sufficient granulation to provide friction for arriving and departing aircraft. Nevertheless, Air New Zealand has previously considered charter flights to Antarctica, and said that the ice runway at McMurdo Station was sufficient for its 767-300ER - the jet did not need any modifications.

Today, advanced navigation procedures are available to pilots, and USAF C-17 pilots have even made landings in total darkness using night vision goggles (previously, barrels of burning fuel were used to mark the runway in the dark). Jet fuel is very expensive to transport to Antarctica, and is brought in by ship during the summer months when the sea ice can be broken by ice breakers. However, unlike the RZNAF 757s which currently fly to Antarctica from New Zealand, certain commercial aircraft like the Boeing 767-300ER, as an example, would have a range of well over 6,000 miles, making it possible to fly back to New Zealand, without having to add fuel in Antarctica - this significantly reduces operational costs.

Future role of aviation

There has recently been a significant amount of activity from airlines, who are seeking to fly to, and land at, Antarctica, for commercial flights:

- In 2015, a commercial Boeing 757 passenger jet successfully landed on a blue-ice field on Union Glacier in Antarctica, for the first time. The airliner was piloted by Loftleidir Icelandic as "part of a larger investigation into the use of such aircraft for ALE's Antarctic operations."

- In 2016, it was announced that tourists will be able to fly from Argentina to Antarctica from 2018, on the first-ever regular commercial flights to the frozen continent. Flights will depart once or twice weekly from Ushuaia in Tierra del Fuego, to the Argentinian base of Marambio on Seymour Island, situated near the tip of the Antarctic peninsula (3,330 km south of Buenos Aires). The airstrip at Marambio will be upgraded with a radar station allowing for the safe arrival of regular flights. Approximately 10 per cent of accommodation at the base will be made available for tourists. The flights will take around one and a half hours and will be serviced by turboprop planes from the state-owned airline LADE.

Topics for discussion

I wonder what people think about the development of commercial aviation in Antarctica - particularly:

- Is there scope for Aerolineas Argentinas, Air New Zealand, Latam Airlines, South African Airways or Virgin Australia to challenge Qantas' dominance on the sightseeing flyovers of Antarctica, that do not land there?

- In light of the upcoming commercial flights to Antarctica by LADE, what additional regulations should be put in place, for safety and sustainability?

- Is there scope for a charter flight to land in Antarctica, allow tourists to walk around a base like McMurdo Station for an hour, before flying off again, as an alternative to the flyovers? Part of the revenue generated from such a flight could go towards conservation efforts. A 787 would have sufficient range to not need to re-fuel in Antarctica, for such a flight. Air New Zealand might be well placed to offer such flights, given that New Zealand's Ross Dependency hosts Antarctica's largest community - McMurdo Station, and Air New Zealand can also pick up connections from the Americas and Asia.

As I understand, for most tourists, the major attraction is seeing the penguins up close. I don’t think any of the penguin colonies are within reach of the airstrips. I think this is the primary reason why marine tourism will likely continue to dominate.

As I understand, for most tourists, the major attraction is seeing the penguins up close. I don’t think any of the penguin colonies are within reach of the airstrips. I think this is the primary reason why marine tourism will likely continue to dominate.

ALE chartered Twin Otters and Baslers do runs to an Emperor Penguin colony from Patriot Hills.

There has recently been a significant amount of activity from airlines, who are seeking to fly to, and land at, Antarctica, for commercial flights:

- In 2015, a commercial Boeing 757 passenger jet successfully landed on a blue-ice field on Union Glacier in Antarctica, for the first time. The airliner was piloted by Loftleidir Icelandic as "part of a larger investigation into the use of such aircraft for ALE's Antarctic operations."

- In 2016, it was announced that tourists will be able to fly from Argentina to Antarctica from 2018, on the first-ever regular commercial flights to the frozen continent. Flights will depart once or twice weekly from Ushuaia in Tierra del Fuego, to the Argentinian base of Marambio on Seymour Island, situated near the tip of the Antarctic peninsula (3,330 km south of Buenos Aires). The airstrip at Marambio will be upgraded with a radar station allowing for the safe arrival of regular flights. Approximately 10 per cent of accommodation at the base will be made available for tourists. The flights will take around one and a half hours and will be serviced by turboprop planes from the state-owned airline LADE.

I might like to add that Chilean Aerovías DAP based in PUQ (Punta Arenas) has developed a charter airline known as Antarctic Airways. They run tours to Isla Rey Jorge where Villas Las Estrellas is located. With them it is also possible to camp on this Antarctic island. They use BAe 146 for the 2hrs flight. DAP had been flying to this island for years.

As I understand, for most tourists, the major attraction is seeing the penguins up close. I don’t think any of the penguin colonies are within reach of the airstrips. I think this is the primary reason why marine tourism will likely continue to dominate.

ALE chartered Twin Otters and Baslers do runs to an Emperor Penguin colony from Patriot Hills.

As I understand, for most tourists, the major attraction is seeing the penguins up close. I don’t think any of the penguin colonies are within reach of the airstrips. I think this is the primary reason why marine tourism will likely continue to dominate.

ALE chartered Twin Otters and Baslers do runs to an Emperor Penguin colony from Patriot Hills.

I'm sorry for hi-jacking this thread but some old stories came to mind.

For a few years I worked in the Twin Otter world, firstly with some ex-First Air folks and then Borek. My friend, the late Bob Heath, who tragically passed away in a crash in 2013 on the ice had this account of his Twin Otter ferry trip to Rothera. He posted this on AvCanada on October 30, 2006...

Crossing the Drake

It has been a very long week...

Prepping four airplanes, to fly from the top of the world to the bottom of the world (with four new crewmembers) requires patience, planning, forbearance, skill, and several other virtues that I don't possess.

And yet, seven days after our Calgary departure, we are here. Granted, we are at Rothera (the Brit Station on the peninsula), and not at our destination. It's a lot like saying we're almost in Inuvik when we depart Halifax.

Leaving was not, for all of us the pleasant exciting time it often is. Personal tragedy, mis-placed equipment, and aprehension about flying off the edge of the known world made it difficult for several of us. Flying into one country enroute where deviations from normal flight tolerances often result in arrest likely didn't make it easier for the new crews.

We have had good flight conditions the length of the flight. Tail-winds, fair weather, no thunderstorms or accumulated icing. Yesterday made up for that.

Crossing the Drake is an occaision not unlike crossing the equator for sailors. For pilots the things that we forget from flight school really are important. We reach a point of no return enroute. At this point we are commited to proceeding. There is a critical point where we will take an equal mount of time to return safely to South America or to proceed. We have a different calculation if an engine fails and we must fly home at a slower speed. New co-pilots tend to be very solemn when they calculate these points. I have a new co-pilot.

While we have forecasters building forecasts and interpreting weather sattellite imagery for us, nature is a force to be reckoned with. The winds were more a hindrance that a help. Icing limited our ability to climb. We had a window of opportunity to arrive in Rothera of about eight hours. It is a seven hour flight. I landed on the ski strip above the base. The previous two aircraft on wheels landed at the base. The ski tracks of the first aircraft to land at the ski-strip (my reference for safe touchdown ) disappeared in the half light of cloud cover (flat light) 15 minutes after touchdown.

Arriving on the continent means changing the configuration of the aircraft from wheels to wheel-skis to land at the ski-way, and then from wheel-skis to straight skis. Wheel-skis weigh 900 pounds. We take one set of these for each two aircraft. Straight skis 300. We take them all with us. Changing them means an engineer has to have the help of his pilots. Which means twice as much work for the engineers as working alone.

We worked to the end of our duty day up on the glacier changing the skiis. Tow machines now have skis. Two are on wheel-skis. The latter will fly up to the top of the glacier when the weather improves. Then we will put straight skis on them. This an all-day process. As a rule, engineer's have a much lower opinion of pilots than when they started.

Today the weather is as brutal as you might be able to picture, when you imagine Polar explorers trudging through the snow. No visability due to driving snow in a 40 knot wind. No contrast so that you trip over any small drift. Today we are staying put. Tomorrow too maybe. After a week of speaking Spanglish, we are learning to speak English English. There are 21 dialects of it. There are 21 Brits here. Each one speaks a different dialect.

Interesting thread! Like many others I am keen to follow the development of aviation links to this part of the world.

planemanofnz wrote:

Is there scope for a charter flight to land in Antarctica, allow tourists to walk around a base like McMurdo Station for an hour, before flying off again, as an alternative to the flyovers? Part of the revenue generated from such a flight could go towards conservation efforts. A 787 would have sufficient range to not need to re-fuel in Antarctica, for such a flight. Air New Zealand might be well placed to offer such flights, given that New Zealand's Ross Dependency hosts Antarctica's largest community - McMurdo Station, and Air New Zealand can also pick up connections from the Americas and Asia.[/i]

You really are determined to join as many dots as possible in our part of the world aren't you! Seriously though, I'm not certain how feasible a one-hour tour of McMurdo would be - it's a working base which would mean a fair amount of logistics involved, and by all accounts it is one of the least pretty places in Antarctica. If you're serious about landing people at McMurdo, it might be more worthwhile looking at whether a longer stay (a week?) at a purpose built place a bit away from McMurdo might make sense, and whether the aircraft doing these weekly flights could take on the role of the air lift currently done by military transports. I'm not sure how feasible that would be either, mind you.

planemanofnz wrote:

Scenic flights

Air New Zealand briefly ran scenic flights over the continent. In 1979, one of its planes crashed into Mount Erebus, killing all 257 on board. That disaster has left a scar on New Zealand, and is likely the reason for the airline's decision not to return to Antarctica for more than three decades. Meanwhile, each year, Qantas runs several flights from Australia to Antarctica (a sightseeing flyover that does not land), with a distance of between 9,500 – 10,500 kms, return (approximately 12.5 hours), depending on the departure city. Expert Antarctic expeditioners are onboard to talk on the polar environment and its history, while video screenings depict life on the ground. See: http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/home#expect.

Upcoming Qantas flyover flights to Antarctica depart from:- Sydney on November 25, 2017- Melbourne on December 31, 2017- Melbourne on February 11, 2018- Brisbane on February 18, 2018

...

- Is there scope for Aerolineas Argentinas, Air New Zealand, Latam Airlines, South African Airways or Virgin Australia to challenge Qantas' dominance on the sightseeing flyovers of Antarctica, that do not land there?

A little clarification is needed here: the Air New Zealand flights were operated and marketed by Air New Zealand. I believe Qantas did the same during the same time period, and also ceased after the Erebus crash.

The flights currently going from Australia are marketed by a travel agency from Victoria, Croydon Travel, under a brand-name Antarctica Flights. They charter the flight from Qantas, who obviously are quite intimately involved with the process, but it would be incorrect to regard this as a Qantas initiative. It may interest you to know that Croydon Travel are also the people behind the Captain's Choice tours, which are also run as a charter from Qantas.

I flew on an Antarctica flight ex-Sydney in early 2005. It was truly phenomenal. Although we didn't descend below 19,000ft, the view was fantastic. You really got a perspective of the landscape, the flow of the glaciers, the mountains, it was just awesome. The amount of time over the ice (it was about 3 hours) was worth the 5 hour transit each way, and I'd definitely do it again.

V/F

It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh

- In 2016, it was announced that tourists will be able to fly from Argentina to Antarctica from 2018, on the first-ever regular commercial flights to the frozen continent. Flights will depart once or twice weekly from Ushuaia in Tierra del Fuego, to the Argentinian base of Marambio on Seymour Island, situated near the tip of the Antarctic peninsula (3,330 km south of Buenos Aires). The airstrip at Marambio will be upgraded with a radar station allowing for the safe arrival of regular flights. Approximately 10 per cent of accommodation at the base will be made available for tourists. The flights will take around one and a half hours and will be serviced by turboprop planes from the state-owned airline LADE.

[i]- Is there scope for Aerolineas Argentinas, Air New Zealand, Latam Airlines, South African Airways or Virgin Australia to challenge Qantas' dominance on the sightseeing flyovers of Antarctica, that do not land there?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those LADE fights. Assuming they are still on, I have never heard anything further about their plans to fly there. A quick search on Google reveals that the last public available information is from 2016 - when the announcement was made. On top of it, LADE only has access to S340s and C-130s from the Air Force. The F-27s, that used to visit Marambio were withdrawn from service last year.

On the link above we can see that EADS pitched the the C-295 to the FAA - Argentinian Air Force, including a demo flight to Marambio.

Regarding AR or LA challenging QF's dominance on these Antarctic scenic flights, I doubt it. To pay a fortune to be on a plane for 10-12 hours so one can claim to have seen the last frontier - from above - may be appealing to some people. But, unlike Australia, Argentina and Chile have plenty of sub Antarctic National Parks and in the case of Argentina, some of the largest, still growing glaciers on the planet where once can actually walk on them, touch, feel, the real thing.

I agree with those who don't see the point of a scenic flight. Yes, you could see some amazing sights, but through a small airplane window from 19,000 feet? I'd rather sit in a comfortable IMAX theater and watch a two hour movie of the same trip possibly shot from a lower altitude with a good lens instead of a scratched window.

I did a cruise from Ushuaia to the Antarctic peninsula and that was wonderful. Seeing the ice from sea level, looking up at the mountains of ice gives you a much better idea of how much ice there is. I haven't flown over Antarctica, but I have flown over the Arctic and Greenland and sea level is better. Also the cruise has penguins. Lots and lots of penguins.

Cruises leave minimal lasting impact on the land. If you flew there and stayed overnight the impact would be much greater.

ugh.I don't like it. "boots on the ground" is damaging, a spiritual violation of the agreements against commercial exploitation of the continent, and furthers the slippery slope condition which will inevitably bring more nations/interests in to grab their share.

I know, I know - a guest lodge at McMurdo (or wherever) would pour cash in, funding all the research you can imagine....... but its a huge genie out of a bottle that just isn't necessary.

ugh.I don't like it. "boots on the ground" is damaging, a spiritual violation of the agreements against commercial exploitation of the continent, and furthers the slippery slope condition which will inevitably bring more nations/interests in to grab their share.

I know, I know - a guest lodge at McMurdo (or wherever) would pour cash in, funding all the research you can imagine....... but its a huge genie out of a bottle that just isn't necessary.

I vote no. As if I had a vote.

I don't have a vote either, but I'm with you. I find the idea of commercialising Antartica quite disturbing. Flyovers, sure, but no more than that.

ugh.I don't like it. "boots on the ground" is damaging, a spiritual violation of the agreements against commercial exploitation of the continent, and furthers the slippery slope condition which will inevitably bring more nations/interests in to grab their share.

I know, I know - a guest lodge at McMurdo (or wherever) would pour cash in, funding all the research you can imagine....... but its a huge genie out of a bottle that just isn't necessary.

I vote no. As if I had a vote.

I don't know if the comment above referred to my cruise to the peninsula, or to the idea of overnight stays on the mainland. I agree overnight stays and "hotels" are a very bad idea.

The cruise I was on had tight limitations. There are only a handful of places where landings could take place, limits on the number of people allowed ashore at any time (my ship had around 130 passengers, and not all were ashore at once), and absolutely nothing was left except footprints. We stayed on the ship for meals, toilets, and lodging.

We were instructed to stay at least 3 meters from all wildlife, more from seals who liked to be left alone. Apparently no one told the penguins the rules, so if you stood still they would soon be walking by right next to you treating you as inanimate object. We were to told to stay out of the penguin freeways, the common paths to the water. But if we all walked in the same place when we turned around we found that our path was now covered with penguins who had adopted it as a new freeway. You wouldn't want to get too close anyway. They smell terrible.

ugh.I don't like it. "boots on the ground" is damaging, a spiritual violation of the agreements against commercial exploitation of the continent, and furthers the slippery slope condition which will inevitably bring more nations/interests in to grab their share.

I know, I know - a guest lodge at McMurdo (or wherever) would pour cash in, funding all the research you can imagine....... but its a huge genie out of a bottle that just isn't necessary.

I vote no. As if I had a vote.

Have to say I'm with you on this. The fewer people who tread on Antarctica the better IMHO.

Travel about 40-50 times per year long haul and domestically. Currently based in KL Malaysia and looking to connect with those who watch and seek to understand the commercial airline industry and want to have some fun and engaging dialogue along the way.

You might be surprised to know that most of Antarctica is already claimed (albeit, with limited recognition, and some unresolved boundary disputes). Other than the un-claimed Marie Byrd Land (which some publications in the United States have shown as being a United States territory, based on the activities of the United States there prior to 1959), there is not much left for other nations to "grab."

Notably, New Zealand's Ross Dependency is actually constitutionally a part of New Zealand "proper," and is not merely a dependent territory (like Tokelau), or an associated state (like Niue). Most people in New Zealand are unaware of this, and the fact that New Zealand therefore shares mutually recognized land borders with territories from the likes of Norway and France (meeting at the South Pole).

MoKa777 wrote:

I don't think SAA would get involved with scenic flights. They are not financially stable enough to consider such an operation. Although they are crazy enough to do so.

Thanks for the insight, MoKa777. One day, if SA becomes a more sustainable operation, this might be of interest to it - indeed, CPT is one of only a few major airports that would be ideally located for such operations:

aerolimani wrote:

I don’t think any of the penguin colonies are within reach of the airstrips. I think this is the primary reason why marine tourism will likely continue to dominate.

I agree that nature is a strong attraction in Antarctica, but, equally, there would be a (wealthy) niche that would just genuinely be interested in saying that they have stepped foot there, similar to why some people go to, say, North Korea. Separately, I also think that there would be some interest in the history and nature of human activity in Antarctica, which could be satisfied at, say, McMurdo Station.

In both instances, limited flights to McMurdo Station could be viable - if co-ordinated with the appropriate authorities properly, a flight from AKL could land at NZIR, allow passengers to have a short tour and photo opportunity, before flying back to AKL again. The effect on the natural environment would be minimal, as the flights could bring back all traces of waste to New Zealand, for future disposal.

Some cultural sights in Antarctica:

Chapel of the Snows - McMurdo Station

Robert F. Scott's "Time Capsule Hut" - Cape Evans

VirginFlyer wrote:

I'm not certain how feasible a one-hour tour of McMurdo would be - it's a working base which would mean a fair amount of logistics involved, and by all accounts it is one of the least pretty places in Antarctica. If you're serious about landing people at McMurdo, it might be more worthwhile looking at whether a longer stay (a week?)

For 3 or 4 flights a year, I am sure that a one or two hour tour could be co-ordinated appropriately - after all, McMurdo Station is the largest settlement in Antarctica, and there would be no shortage of staff to guide and supervise visitors. I am not so sure that a "longer stay" would be viable though - a dedicated facility would be too much for just 3 or 4 flights a year (the likely amount), and as noted above, McMurdo Station is not exactly pretty - people would likely not want to stay for one week. In addition, New Zealand is likely to discourage any activities more than the bare minimum needed, to facilitate this initiative.

FlyHappy wrote:

I vote no. As if I had a vote.

mariner wrote:

I find the idea of commercialising Antartica quite disturbing

NZ321 wrote:

The fewer people who tread on Antarctica the better IMHO.

I am also not too enthused at the prospect of further commercial tourism growth in Antarctica, and the potential effect that it might have on the environment. However, it must be said that:

- Tourists who are able to visit the region may become ambassadors for Antarctica.- There has been no conclusive evidence that tourism so far has disturbed breeding patterns of wildlife.- Tour operators have codes of conduct to minimise impact, like not going within five metres of wildlife.

On the point about tourists being ambassadors, one website explains this quite well:

"How or why should anyone care about a place that hardly anyone knows of or visits? The more voices there are speaking on behalf of Antarctica, if development or extraction of mineral resources is considered, the better. Remember, this is a place where no-one lives permanently, and so there are no native residents to speak up for it."

Whether we like it or not, the growth will continue - just look at these figures:

Obzerva wrote:

Do Skytraders still operate the A319s from HBA to Wilkins?

AFAIK, yes - it operates weekly, from October to March, serving members of research expeditions, as well as scientists:

Cheers,

C.

Last edited by planemanofnz on Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

- Tourists who are able to visit the region may become ambassadors for Antarctica.- There has been no conclusive evidence that tourism so far has disturbed breeding patterns of wildlife.- Tour operators have codes of conduct to minimise impact, like not going within five metres of wildlife.

(a) I don't know why it needs "ambassadors." I'll never go to Venus, but it doesn't stop me being fascinated by the planet. I read the quote you provided and thought it to be a massive piece of self-justification, and advocating mining in Antartica. Bad news for the environment.

(b) I'm not willing to take the risk. I saw what happened to Bali in the space of twenty years. The more tourists that go, the more chance there is of despoliation. If your response is that I cannot stop that tourism, I know that. But I don't have to advocate it.

(c) There will always be people who will push the code of conduct to the limit - and sometimes beyond.

Recently saw the new NZ safety video, and got me wondering why no airlines offer service to Antartica. Obviously, tourism isn't exactly bursting at the seams by any means, and infrastructure would require at least a few years of major investment, but in the future, with some promotion and the right sized aircraft operating on a once weekly basis, it could work. In my opinion, if anyone can make it work, it's NZ, so I guess its fitting that they have a safety video themed to it.

As to actually landing there... it's because there is nothing there. Any facilities are for researchers only with occasional charter operations (such as the Antarctic marathon). There's nothing for a "normal" tourist to do really.

Recently saw the new NZ safety video, and got me wondering why no airlines offer service to Antartica. Obviously, tourism isn't exactly bursting at the seams by any means, and infrastructure would require at least a few years of major investment, but in the future, with some promotion and the right sized aircraft operating on a once weekly basis, it could work. In my opinion, if anyone can make it work, it's NZ, so I guess its fitting that they have a safety video themed to it.

some exceptionally small outposts in Alaska and Canada (Whitehorse being the best example) have gotten it to work, so I don't see why it won't happen in the future, especially with global warming exposing land and mildening conditions.

There are "regular" services to King George Island from Chile/Argentina - since this is a permanent settlement, this is the only place to visit that is a relatively normal place to visit. If you have enough cash you can get on a plane to South Pole Station too, though good luck.There are landing strips for even decent-sized jets so aviation infrastructure is not the problem (though other infrastructure such as accommodation is).

Everyone who operates tours to Antarctica must have a permit and must have minimal environmental impact. The Antarctic is meant to be kept environmentally pristine, politically neutral and non-commercialized so Accor can't just go in and build a hotel for tourists. South Korea even forbids its citizens from visiting Antarctica as a preservation method.

Tourism demand to the Antarctic IS surging though - the problem is not filling planes but how to keep people away. If the environmental impact on Antarctica becomes much greater, it's much more likely that tourism is capped or outright prohibited in the mid-long term.

Recently saw the new NZ safety video, and got me wondering why no airlines offer service to Antartica. Obviously, tourism isn't exactly bursting at the seams by any means, and infrastructure would require at least a few years of major investment, but in the future, with some promotion and the right sized aircraft operating on a once weekly basis, it could work. In my opinion, if anyone can make it work, it's NZ, so I guess its fitting that they have a safety video themed to it.

some exceptionally small outposts in Alaska and Canada (Whitehorse being the best example) have gotten it to work, so I don't see why it won't happen in the future, especially with global warming exposing land and mildening conditions.

Best example of what? Whitehorse is notable for having international service to FRA on DE... but it's far from "exceptionally small" as far as tourism destinations in Alaska or Canada go.

As I'm typing this I'm actually watching an article on BBC news regarding Antarctica and I will say again NO for so many reasons and it would never get permission to do so especially as the continent is protected and governed by international treaties.

We as human beings are partly the cause of global warming and the last thing society wants are more humans to land on the white continent and those that currently do so are their for scientific reasons or the very limited amount of Tourism that is catered for by cruise ships with the larger vessels not even landing their passengers.

Totally agree with the last two comments. Antarctica should be kept commercial flight-free, with only a limited number of cruise ships allowed to visit.

Sorry OP, but the premise of your thread is tone deaf, not to mention naive.

Suggesting that commercial flights should or could operate to Antarctica, one of the last pristine, untouched wilderness areas on Earth, is deeply worrying. Further, it hints that you’re clueless or simply don’t care about environmental issues and the human impact on our planet that is slowly destroying it, possibly forever.

In my view, the aviation industry should be taking rapid steps towards battery, renewable and solar-powered aircraft, whatever the cost, even if it means ticket prices riding in the short term.

The current fossil-fuelled increases in passenger numbers is wholly unsustainable. However that’s for another thread...

with some promotion and the right sized aircraft operating on a once weekly basis, it could work. In my opinion, if anyone can make it work, it's NZ, so I guess its fitting that they have a safety video themed to it.

A flat earther would say "It is the physical end of the Earth and governments are working hard to protect this secrecy from the people"Though there is no truth to this statement, its a good way to convince people to stop going there so that the environment can be protected

Totally agree with the last two comments. Antarctica should be kept commercial flight-free, with only a limited number of cruise ships allowed to visit.

Sorry OP, but the premise of your thread is tone deaf, not to mention naive.

Suggesting that commercial flights should or could operate to Antarctica, one of the last pristine, untouched wilderness areas on Earth, is deeply worrying. Further, it hints that you’re clueless or simply don’t care about environmental issues and the human impact on our planet that is slowly destroying it, possibly forever.

In my view, the aviation industry should be taking rapid steps towards battery, renewable and solar-powered aircraft, whatever the cost, even if it means ticket prices riding in the short term.

The current fossil-fuelled increases in passenger numbers is wholly unsustainable. However that’s for another thread...

One could make the same argument about exploring Mars which is untouched by humans, but there are two sides of each coin. Climate change is an incredibly important issue, no doubt about it. There absolutely should be some limits or restrictions in place to preserve the pristine condition of Antartica for future generations, but I don't think that making it inaccessible to the public at all is a good move either. Antarctica is a fascinating and amazing place to see and I think commercial flights would be a good thing in some small quantity to allow people to explore the beauty that is Antartica with their own eyes.

Totally agree with the last two comments. Antarctica should be kept commercial flight-free, with only a limited number of cruise ships allowed to visit.

Sorry OP, but the premise of your thread is tone deaf, not to mention naive.

Suggesting that commercial flights should or could operate to Antarctica, one of the last pristine, untouched wilderness areas on Earth, is deeply worrying. Further, it hints that you’re clueless or simply don’t care about environmental issues and the human impact on our planet that is slowly destroying it, possibly forever.

In my view, the aviation industry should be taking rapid steps towards battery, renewable and solar-powered aircraft, whatever the cost, even if it means ticket prices riding in the short term.

The current fossil-fuelled increases in passenger numbers is wholly unsustainable. However that’s for another thread...

One could make the same argument about exploring Mars which is untouched by humans, but there are two sides of each coin. Climate change is an incredibly important issue, no doubt about it. There absolutely should be some limits or restrictions in place to preserve the pristine condition of Antartica for future generations, but I don't think that making it inaccessible to the public at all is a good move either. Antarctica is a fascinating and amazing place to see and I think commercial flights would be a good thing in some small quantity to allow people to explore the beauty that is Antartica with their own eyes.

According to Mr. President of the United States and his pals, climate change isn't true.In fact, Antarctica is already polluted but not to the extent as other places on earth. The thought of visiting the white desert is simply astounding but the best thing we can do right now is to keep it away. Maybe it can be the only survivable place in a century on earth. Who knows?

For commercial operations into Antarctica, see:Skytraders HBA-YWKSAerovias DAP PUQ-TNM charterALE PUQ-SCGC CharterHNA& other operators CPT-Wolf's Fang Runway (bizjet charter)And then Argentina is upgrading SAWB that should start to receive tourist from year 2018 as in this year.

Recently saw the new NZ safety video, and got me wondering why no airlines offer service to Antartica. Obviously, tourism isn't exactly bursting at the seams by any means, and infrastructure would require at least a few years of major investment, but in the future, with some promotion and the right sized aircraft operating on a once weekly basis, it could work. In my opinion, if anyone can make it work, it's NZ, so I guess its fitting that they have a safety video themed to it.

some exceptionally small outposts in Alaska and Canada (Whitehorse being the best example) have gotten it to work, so I don't see why it won't happen in the future, especially with global warming exposing land and mildening conditions.